Lancashire County Council elections will go ahead in May – in spite of the authority’s days being numbered. The government last month said it was scrapping the so-called ‘two-tier’ structure that operates in places like Lancashire – meaning all of the county’s 15 councils will be abolished in the foreseeable future and replaced with no more than four new local authorities spread across the patch.
Ministers invited any areas of the country that were ready to bring forward proposals for a more streamlined council set-up to apply by January 10, for the cancellation of any elections due to be held in 2025 – on the basis that those authorities would soon no longer exist. However, as the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) revealed before Christmas, Lancashire County Council’s leadership quickly resolved to decline that offer – and the authority has now confirmed that it has not asked for permission to pull the plug on the poll scheduled for May 1.
The authority’s Conservative leader, Phillippa Williamson, says it is important the debate about the local authority landscape in Lancashire “does not overshadow our ambitious devolution plans – and [that] we are given the time to fully explore the best options for our collective future”. Lancashire’s long-awaited devolution deal is set to come into force in the coming weeks, with the creation of a new combined county authority (CCA) to oversee the additional powers and cash being sent the county’s way.
The issue of devolution – although strictly separate – has become bound up with the prospect of an overhaul of the county’s councils after the government set out its plans for both in a policy document published in December. County Cllr Williamson said of the forthcoming changes to the way Lancashire is governed: “Local government reform, particularly in an area as large and diverse as Lancashire, is vastly complex and getting consensus will not be generated quickly, if at all.”
The authority says that as well as preparing for the county vote in May, it remains “business as usual” for all other aspects of the authority’s work, in spite of the fact the axe now hangs over it. The decision not to press pause on the elections has promoted a mixed reaction from MPs and senior county councillors – and one which does not cut neatly along the political divide.
Ten of the 13 Labour MPs whose constituencies lie wholly or partly within Lancashire have written to County Cllr Williamson to accuse County Hall of putting an “unacceptable obstruction” in the way of any further devolution – and threatening the financial viability of local government in Lancashire. One of their number, South Ribble’s Paul Foster, has also said the elections will be a waste of the £2m it will cost to stage them.
However, Lancaster and Wyre MP Cat Smith – one of the three Lancashire Labour parliamentarians not to put their name to the letter – says it is “healthy” for the vote to go ahead as planned. Any local authority shake-up in Lancashire is likely to be a lengthy process – not least because there is no consensus amongst the 15 council leaders about whether it should even happen, let alone what shape it should take.
The government has stressed that it is for local authorities themselves to put forward suggestions about which council areas should merge to create a simpler single-tier structure in the likes of Lancashire – and that their proposals should consider the needs of the entire county, not just their particular corner of it.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner indicated last month that elections would be postponed for no more than a year – meaning the replacement authorities, or at least shadow versions of them, would have to be in place by May 2026. That would be an ambitious timetable for Lancashire to meet given its fractured – and fractious – starting point on the subject.
Had the county council elections been cancelled, the current crop of 84 county councillors would have served extended terms until the authority ceased to exist. The political palatability of such a delay to the democratic process almost certainly has a time limit – and it is potentially one that would be exceeded by how long it would take Lancashire to reach an agreement over its future.
Throw into the mix the equally vexed question of a deeper devolution deal and the prospect of an elected Lancashire mayor – both of which have been promoted by the majority of Lancashire’s Labour MPs and its district council leaders – and the recipe for long-term wrangling is set.
When the council overhaul does eventually happen, it will see result in the disappearance of Lancashire County Council, the standalone authorities in Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen and the dozen district councils – Preston, South Ribble, Chorley, West Lancashire, Fylde, Wyre, Lancaster, Ribble Valley, Burnley, Rosendale, Hyndburn and Pendle.
That change is coming is not now in doubt – but when remains one of several unknowns.
‘SPEND ELECTION CASH FIXING POTHOLES’
South Ribble MP Paul Foster said the money that would have been saved by cancelling the county council elections could have been better spent on other services – and warned the longer-term damage of delaying the process was even more significant.
He also told the LDRS he believed County Cllr Williamson was “deliberately doing whatever she can to delay devolution and local government reorganisation in Lancashire – despite this clearly being in the best interests of the 1.5 million residents”.
The former South Ribble Borough Council leader added: “These attempted delays will cost us hundreds of millions of pounds in investment, prevent us from all locally delivering better quality services [and] improving our roads and schools – and will probably lead to some district councils actually going bust.
“County Cllr Williamson is also refusing Lancashire a seat on the Council of Nations and Regions [the new government body on which elected mayors have a place] – how can this possibly be justified?
“Other Conservative councils in England have jumped on board, postponed their local elections and are signing up to the greatest opportunity in a generation – because they are putting residents first, not self interest.
“The Lancashire Tories can only delay the inevitable for so long, though. It’s them that have to justify wasting £2-3m on local elections in May, knowing the reorganisation and further elections will take place 12-24 months later. I’d rather they used the money to repair the appalling potholes and roads in Lancashire which blight us all,” Mr. Foster said.
‘KEEP DOING DEMOCRACY’
David Howarth, leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Lancashire County Council, welcomed the news that the County Hall elections were going ahead in the spring.
He told the LDRS that “people have a right to pass a judgement on the way the county has been run for the past four years by the Conservatives – who I think have a lot to answer for”.
The veteran politician also said the lack of clarity about exactly what was on the horizon for local government in Lancashire meant democracy could not be put on hold indefinitely.
“To just throw it open to [local councils] and say, ‘Give us a proposal’ leaves everyone jockeying for position as to what is best for them.
“If we knew what was happening in 12 months’ time and that there would be a new set-up in place [then that would be different]. But we’ve no idea [even how many councils there will be] – so postponing the elections really doesn’t achieve anything, because we could still be in the same place a year later,” County Cllr Howarth said.
The county council’s Labour opposition group leader, Matthew Tomlinson, acknowledged there was “an argument for postponing local elections” given that reorganisation was now inevitable.
However, he said now that the ruling Tory group had decided they would go ahead, “Labour candidates are already out knocking on doors across Lancashire – and we look forward to putting our case to the electorate”.
Labour’s Lancaster and Wyre MP Cat Smith has previously expressed concern that a “one-size-fits-all” council and mayoral arrangement would not work for Lancashire. Along with party colleagues Lizzi Collinge, representing Morecambe and Lunesdale, and Jonathan Hinder in Pendle and Clitheroe, she has not signed the letter from the rest of the county’s Labour MPs expressing dismay that the elections have not been postponed.
Speaking to the LDRS, Ms. Smith said: “I think elections are an important part of our democracy and I welcome the public having their voices heard.”
Gina Dowding, the Green party group leader on the county council, said she was pleased Lancashire County Council had not joined the rush of some other authorities to ditch their local elections.
“This hopefully allows time for all district councils in Lancashire to better understand the serious and wide reaching consequences to the efficient provision of basic services of these proposals.
“I am concerned about the uncertainty for all council staff whose jobs will no doubt remain, but who would have to move to new systems and structures. Also what the government has proposed so far in insisting on new, super-size councils serving a population of half a million people is not appropriate for our county: we would see a loss of sense of place, democracy, and accountability. I hope the government has a re-think, [because] there is a touch of the snake oil salesman about it all,” County Cllr Dowding added.
Meanwhile, Tory county council leader Phillippa Williamson said of the prospect of a poll in less than four months’ time: “Throughout the last four years we have remained relentlessly focussed on building a better Lancashire where everyone can live their best life through stronger communities, a growing economy and high quality public services.
“We are proud of what we have achieved, ambitious for Lancashire’s future, and looking forward to making that case to Lancashire’s residents in the forthcoming elections.”
WHAT’S DEVOLUTION GOT TO DO WITH IT?
Lancashire finally secured a devolution deal with the previous Conservative government just over 12 months ago – after more than eight years of aborted attempts. The agreement – signed by the leaders of Lancashire County Council, Blackpool Council and Blackburn with Darwen Council – was rubber-stamped by the new Labour administration last September, but it came with an invite from local government minister Jim McMahon for the county to bring forward proposals for “deeper and wider devolution” – and the governance arrangements to implement them – by this autumn.
A more extensive deal – with greater powers and funding than those currently on the table – would require Lancashire to have an elected mayor. The government demand for a streamlining of two-tier council areas and its preference for all areas to have a mayor – as set out in its devolution white paper last month – raised the prospects of both processes being accelerated and happening in tandem.
However, the LDRS understands that after a meeting between the government and the signatories of the devolution deal earlier the week, ministers agreed to honour the autumn deadline for the next set of devolution proposals to be drawn up by the county.
It is understood the county council feared that an immediate focus on Lancashire’s next devolution step – before anything had been achieved by taking its first – would render the new CCA a lame duck, hamstrung by the prospect of whatever new arrangement was just around the corner.
However, in their letter to County Cllr Williamson, Lancashire Labour MPs Lorriane Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood), Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire), Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley), Paul Foster (South Ribble), Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston), Patrick Hurley (Southport), Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen), Oliver Ryan (Burnley), Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) and Chris Webb (Blackpool South) say the path now being taken will “hold Lancashire back from its current priority position in the government’s plans for an expedited mayoral deal”.
They claim that it will also “delay Lancashire from gaining the huge benefits outlined in the devolution white paper, [including] greater powers [and] more devolved funds. The MPs add that Lancashire needs “much more” than the £20m in funding for innovation projects, promised under the current deal, in order to put it on an equal footing with the likes of Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region, which have had devolution deals in place for around a decade.
However, County Cllr Williamson said: “I am passionate about the need for devolution in Lancashire and the historic deal we have secured sets the foundation for further devolution, collaboration and ambitious growth. “It is important we do not lose this momentum and we build on the fantastic opportunity we have been given so we are able to pursue even more opportunities via the new CCA.”
Lynn Williams, the Labour leader of Blackpool Council, added: “Devolution in Lancashire and all the benefits that brings to its residents and businesses is already underway. The Lancashire CCA will be formally in place by April and as part of our original devolution agreement with government we will review options for deeper devolution, including a mayoral model. This review is planned to reach a conclusion by autumn 2025.
“The government has agreed that we should continue on that timescale and can join the other areas on the Devolution Priority Programme when our review has concluded. It is critical that we optimise the work that Lancashire has already put into our devolution journey so far and deliver on the promises we have already made to our communities.
“Devolution will allow us to make more decisions locally, will bring additional investment and more opportunity for the people of Blackpool and beyond. We remain committed to making sure this happens.”
The Labour leader of Blackburn with Darwen Council, Phil Riley, said the government’s position “reflects the fact that Lancashire has already started its devolution journey and is therefore in a different position to other areas that have not started any level of devolution”.
“It is our expectation that, after the governance review, Lancashire will join the Devolution Priority Programme.
“It is absolutely critical that Lancashire does not fall any further behind those areas of the North of England with devolution deals and we therefore want to keep up the momentum on behalf of residents and businesses.
“Devolution provides us with the opportunity to make use of many new local powers and access millions of pounds of investment for Blackburn with Darwen and wider Lancashire.”
Subscribe to our daily newsletter LANCS LIVE NEWS and get all the biggest stories from across Lancashire direct to your inbox